Peter Murray <[log in to unmask]>
> True -- the design model does put software packages at the center
> and assumes that libraries have made it at least that far in their
> decision-making process. We don't have a way for providers to list
> themselves independent of Packages. Perhaps a good way to do this
> would be for a provider to associate itself with a package type
> (e.g. integrated library system, digital asset management system,
> etc.) and then list them out by package type. Thoughts?
I'm not sure that would cover Gerhard's reasonable request either.
As a user story, try how software.coop originally got involved in Free
and Open Source Software in libraries, nigh on ten years ago now: a
college library approached one of the Internet Service Providers that
we worked for and asked them to host something. It didn't install
cleanly, so they introduced us and we developed it a little so that
it did. Then after supporting that one package, we were open to
suggestions (we're service-led not investor-led) and now support
several packages, although Koha is still our headline offer.
So how would people realise that we are generally interested in
supporting libraries' development, if we're only listed under
specific package types?
Would support pseudo-packages cover this? So, a package type called
"Support" and pseudo-packages of "Librarian", "Management",
"Technical", "Programming" and so on?
By the way, why's the F-word missing from the logo on foss4lib.org?
It would be nice to see freedom reintroduced there.
> Anyone that has registered for an account (which just requires a
> valid e-mail address) can add a package:
> http://foss4lib.org/node/add/package
>
> ...as well as any of the other content types (Event, Release,
> Provider, and Institution). If you're seeing something that is
> preventing you from doing that, please let me know.
Sadly it requires more than a valid email address.
It requires good eyesight (or jumping through hoops with a decaptcha
program).
That should not be required. And the text really shouldn't imply that
people with poorer eyesight aren't humans.
It looks like it's using drupal: can people be allowed to login with
OpenID without the eyetest, please? That would open access to users
of Wordpress/Livejournal/Google/Yahoo/...and places that do allow
registrations from people with imperfect eyesight.
Thanks in advance,
--
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op.
http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer.
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html
Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/